I concurr, Years ago I had a Jujitsu Instructor say the same thing of the hip throw?, Osoto gari and shoulder throw among others that the way U guide the Uke to the ground determines what part of the body you want to hit the ground 1st neck and shoulder/injur or back/safety. So a throw could be potentially fatal.

I know they can be fight stopping you drive a guy with a throw on to a concrete floor or hard tile 7-10 times if he don't know how to break his fall he can't breath or hes' Ko'd. In the least he'd fell on his arm/broke it or slammed his ankle/broke it and can't get up. Even a good body slam can takes the wind out of their sails.

But as mentioned this guiding angle thing is not practiced and in a pinch we fight the way we train, slaming them to their back or face down and holding onto or pull up on their arm assistting their breakfall or fall.

I am using the current situation to point up how erroneous information gets past around. This is the same way such things like "everybody KNOWS that Chinese Boxing started at the Shaolin Temple" keeps getting handed around.

The question is not "CAN" a throw be lethal. Anything can be made lethal including too much air and too much water. The issue was whether the throw was "designed" to be lethal. A VERY different view.

Now some ryu DO specialize in various focuses. But, I am not willing to sit quietly and watch people pander to half-truthes. If someone wants to make a declaration about the nature and intent of an art or technique all I am stating is that they be prepared with something more than "'cuz teacher said so.", thats all. FWIW.

domestic accidents by falls happen all the time...if someone was skilled enough to control the angle and location of a throw, I guess it is reasonable to assume consistent technique being developed. The only way I could imagine a death from a fall being the max height of lets say 2 meters, is if they break their neck or head trama. I've only witnessed 1 technique which can flip a body with enough force to cause this type of damage, a scissor sweep. one leg behind the thigh, one leg on the chest with a violent twist of the hips will turn a body upside down.

I'm still sceptical of throws being designed to kill however. with all of the good questions g2bh brings up.

Quote:The question is not "CAN" a throw be lethal. Anything can be made lethal including too much air and too much water. The issue was whether the throw was "designed" to be lethal. A VERY different view.

Quote by Kintama -

Quote:I'm still sceptical of throws being designed to kill however. with all of the good questions g2bh brings up.

Again, we seem to be arguing intent with application. A back suplex certainly seems designed to kill by smashing someone's head on the ground. It is outlawed in many MMA tournaments, speaking to it's (presumed) deadliness.

Now, if you asking how often does it work that way? Probably not as much as it should. But that is true for many other techniques such as throat strikes, even gun shots. IMHO, this whole question is a little too vague to be debated properly.

So, SOME throws probably were designed with lethal intent, even if they don't always work that way.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Just because we don't train by killing people doesn't mean that a technique can't be used to kill. When kicking our sparring partners, we don't aim to kill, however several court cases will tell you that a single kick can kill. Was the intent of the kicking style to kill? Only the creator knows for sure.

It's like saying guns don't necessarily have to be used to kill either. You can use them for target practice on inanimate objects. It's people who use guns to kill. The same way, people can use throws to kill if done in a certain manner.

You can't train throws in a killing fashion any more than you can shoot at one another with real bullets (i.e. throwing by changing angles so vital areas are damaged, I won't discuss this on an open forum and I suggest none of you do either).

In my mind, a throw is a very powerful tool designed to cause severe bodily harm to a target person with a risk of death. The same could be said of a gun (although the damage is greater in that case and a gun is classified as a weapon whereas no human is classified as a weapon). This is my personal opinion only.

Arguing that the thread says "designed to kill" is wasting time over symantics. The real issue is underlying that of the literal topic header. The article says "intent" is killing an opponent, this indicates a person choosing to use a throw in this manner, rather than the throw being created with this in mind. If the original topic poster literally meant "designed" as meaning that the original intent was to use throws only for killing (as a gun is used), please clarify upon this issue so we can go into further research about the intent of the creators of these throws.

I agree with what you are saying.I'm not arguing over symantics, I'm just trying to stay on topic. anybody can say sometimes this and maybe sometimes that... which would make them never wrong. I'm curious to hear info of throwing technique developed for the purpose of killing during a time when it was less socially unacceptable to kill...like, I don't know say, feudal Japan perhaps?

In Feudal Japan, they had things like swords, bows and knives to do that sort of thing. As such I think it's unlikely that a killing throw would be developed because unarmed combat was supposedly a last ditch effort when disarmed, presumably the priority of unarmed combat was to disarm your opponent's weapon for your use or provide enough time to retrieve a disarmed weapon. But I would be interested to hear if there is such a throw specifically designed for the task too.